Fare V. Arizona Case Brief

The outline of the Fare v. Michael C. and the facts, issue, and court holding are that a 16-year-old boy was taken into custody by police on suspicion of murder. Respondent Michael C., a juvenile, was under suspicion for murder. Brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for questioning, Michael requested to speak to his probation officer at the beginning of the interrogation. Michael was already on probation with the juvenile courts for things he had done pervious. Also Michael request to speak with his probation officer. The rules of the Miranda states that if a person wishes to remain silent or want to talk to his or her attorney, the questioning office has to cease until the asking person appears. Michael changed his statement and

A muddy shoe print was use to link an unnamed man who was on the run from the police to his vehicle which was carrying 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. Police detective Chad Larner attempted to pull over this man in a Mazda for speeding but he would not stop. The man was eventually able to lose Larner. He then parked the car, got out and tried to hide. The police later found the car and found the man two blocks away. He attempted to bribe a young woman to walk with him by saying that he would give her $40. The woman told the police that he told her that he was in a police chase in which he was not the driver and he was trying to hide from the police. When the police searched the car they found four bags of the 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. The police also

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is one of many cases that made an impact on the future of our criminal justice system. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and accused of kidnapping a raping a young woman. He was interrogated for two hours and signed a confession that later formed the basis of his later conviction on the charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction was unconstitutional because the interrogation occurred before the suspect was advised of his rights. Additionally, any evidence obtained before the suspect is advised of his rights cannot be used against him. The Miranda rights are to ensure the protection of individual rights was guaranteed under the Constitution. To ensure that proper

I chose to write about the process of the pretrial or “intake” phase because it has not been determined by the Supreme Court as critical in juvenile proceedings. Consequently juveniles do not have the right to be represented by counsel during this meeting and if they chose to participate, any statements made to the probation officer during the conference are to be solely admissible for a placement decision, not for prosecution or adult criminal court. In this paper I will reflect and analyze some of the cases detailed in the chapter that discuss whether or not statements made during intake can be used against a juvenile who has no right to counsel during this time.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory

This decision led to the creation of the Miranda Rule. This rule says that before law enforcement can take an individual into custody, they have to inform them of their 5th and 6th amendment rights. Police now are required to issue this warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with your attorney before being questioned by the police, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you before questioning….” If the Miranda warning is not read to the individual being arrested (or any time before being investigated), the evidence acquired during their interrogation is not admissible in court. (384 U.S. 436, 1966.) This case plays such a huge part in the criminal justice system today because people that are unaware of their rights as citizens can be protected. The decision in Miranda V. Arizona is constantly used as precedent today. Two cases that Miranda v Arizona has had precedent over are Missouri V. Seibert and Maryland V. Shatzer.

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

In 1963 a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was accused of committing crimes against a woman. These crimes were rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was a poor man who lived in Arizona. Police came to his house after being accused and took him to the station where they held him for a 2 hour interrogation. Prior to this interrogation the police never did inform him of his rights. Granted by the Constitution, people accused of crimes here in the United States have rights. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that one has the right to be silent. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states that one has the right to have a lawyer to help defend themselves. After they they were done with the interrogation they had Miranda sign a confession. They later used this confession against him. The argument his attorney used was that his confession should not be used against him because he was not told his rights when arrested. He was still overruled and had a 20 year sentence.

The court, at the sentencing hearing, shall consider specified factors in determining the appropriate sentence and be given greater discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. This bill extracts details from the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, which entails the cautions when handling the minor in custody and as the minor is released (Illinois General Assembly , 2015). When adolescence potency extended a peak more than 20 years ago, the country lost sureness in its ability to rehabilitate juveniles. Councils passed laws permitting more young offenders to be tried as adults. Since then, juvenile

UCLA Law Review source is most reliable because it draws leading practitioners, students, and professors to a forum that is designed to exchange of ideas and to facilitate. The presumption is that minors cannot legally consent to sex and thus are always victims. Being characterized as a victim helps youth access support services and avoid prosecution in certain circumstances. However, local and state governments struggle to provide all youth with comprehensive resources. The conventional wisdom is that the distinction between legal and equitable remedies is outmoded and serves no purpose. Young people locked up in juvenile prisons have an enormous need for mental healthcare, one which juvenile prisons have consistently found themselves unable

Evolution of Juvenile Justice System Throughout history, children as young as 7 years old accused of wrongdoing went to prison with adults. However, the course of events took a different turn in 1824 when New York house of refuge opened to house the juvenile delinquents. The refuge house charter defined juveniles as “youths convicted of criminal offences or found in vagrancy” (Hess, Orthmann, & Wright, 2012).

Kent held that juveniles were entitled to a hearing, representation by counsel, access to information upon which the waiver decision was based, and a statement of reasons justifying the waiver decision. It included the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home life, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living. These rights we made so that the justice courts can provide guidance and rehabilitation for the juvenile also with protection for society. There are some juveniles out there who are extremely dangerous and do not wish to change the way they are living their life.